Hi, I came up with this while drawing the Timber Hitch/ Killick Hitch for a pamphlet I am working on. I find it easier to draw a knot with the knot in front of me, rather than from a drawing or photograph. While fiddling with it, and wondering what I could do to make the half Hitch grab a little more ? Assuming it is new! I have named it the Caber Hitch.

On first impressions, I'm uneasy on the idea that you need end-access to the standing part of the rope. Maybe it could be presented differently.

I don't think that two sets of gripping coils is needed. If you are dragging something heavy, you're going to want to minimize the number of times you need to pass the rope under the object.

Thanks for the comment roo. Not sure what you mean by "end access".It takes as you say a couple more turns on each set of coils, ... overkill?Have you made it yet?

If your rope was attached to a tractor far away, you would not have ready access to that far end of the standing part. You'd only have end access to the free end or working end near you.

On the coil issue, if your log is really slick enough to require multiple coils, I'd prefer to have them mostly in one area and leave the towing end loop to mainly steer. Having two coiled areas would make it harder to transport slack to where it is needed as things are tied. As an aside, I've had luck with multiple coils finished with a Gnat Hitch (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/gnathitch.html).

As far as your hitch is concerned, I do not see it being very useful to tow logs, as it requires too many wraps around the log, and if you have a log so heavy you need to tow it, and can't tie any other hitch more secure than a timber hitch, then you probably don't want to tie something this cumbersome. However, there are many applications of a knot like this. The first one that comes to mind is lifting beams at a construction site. These metal beams are likely very slippery, so you need some multi-wrap hitch in order to have enough tension friction to hold the beam. this knot seems ideal for something like this; the two separate sets of wrappings keep the beam roughly vertical, and then it is sufficiently strong to hold these beams. Also, in many cases, these beams would be lifted by a crane, which would have heavy duty cables attached to it instead of a rope, so you would want to tie the rope off to something else anyways.

Overall, if you could tie this knot without the standing part of the rope, and preserve the simplicity to tie it, it would be an ideal knot for many more situations. This is my attempt to tie something similar without the standing part, but i wouldn't trust it, as the tail is not very well secured.

It would do best to lose "Killick hitch" from association with thelog-hauling activity : because, so far as I'm aware of historicalindications, the K. hitch (there are many expansions for "k"!)originated --and so is properly constrained to be-- as a sort ofanchoring hitch to a stone ; the desired quality (my surmise)was both grip and staying tied (jamming), which the collaringof parts of this seen-as-two-structures (i.e., timber & half-hitch_attachment arguably did, in natural-fibre rope, swelling in water.

So, depending upon the orientation of the two parts --i.e., turnedas for a cow / clove hitch, one can see the K. as whicheverof them, with the tail "dogged" for its security. (The cow offersbetter jamming as described above, IMO.)

Separating the component parts and then seeing in that someother function, where these parts are indeed spaced apart,I currently take as a confusing shift of reality, courtesy of knotsbooks (whose accuracy is suspect).

Quote

I have named it the Caber Hitch.

What problem calls for this as a solution?

As Roo remarks, an obvious limitation to this proposed structureis the tying, as you've shown it (and otherwise). Why wouldsomeone go to the trouble of this, vs. the quick & simple throwingon of a timber hitch + half-hitch? (Apologies to X1 if I shouldsay "nipping turn" --the graphics are the same, here)

Frankly, I find the base structure (left side as presented) to bean unhelpful bit of knotting : many wraps, with suspect securityto a strong pull, and dubious gain of those wraps for gripping!

So, all this ... leads to a fundamental question of this structure'sgenesis : why ... ? You wrote that you wanted "to make thehalf-Hitch grab a little more." Did you have real slipping issues,or imagined ones? (I'm guessing that in most cases where thestructure is used, the conditions are such that it works --thehistorical structure, i.e..) Working with this 2nd part near theend of the hauled item, one might cast a pile hitch on, whichamounts to taking a bight around the object. This can be orientedin a couple of ways. Lacking a nearby end --tying in the *bight*of the object, so to speak--, one might try just tying off thewrapped bight in an overhand eyeknot qua stopper, andorienting the bight-wrap so that the hauled line is betweenobject and the other end (and can't prise the other over thestopper, thus).

Well, I found that when tying the Timber Hitch & Half Hitch on an admittedlysmooth rubber hammer handle, it was less secure than I had expected for a logtowing/hauling hitch.

Ah, yes, it would be worrisome (esp. to those below the hoisted hammer!).There are some special simple ways of this : sort of a clove structurearound the hammer head (i.e., on both sides of the shaft, going aroundthe hammer & claw, say), tail stoppered, and then the half-hitch up thehandle serves primarily to orient upright & hold. (A pile hitch would bepossible to cast on, though seems like overkill --or showmanship!)

Quote

Having said that, I imagine the bark on most logs ...

... is worse than their bytes.

Near the end of the object, extra half-hitches can be put on,and they should give sufficient grip, in combination, and willbe more quickly done (and TIB --tiable in the bight, no ends);for that matter, a rolling hitch could be put on over the end.

Quote

... , which involved putting almost my full weighton a suspended broomstick tied with this hitch, ...

I'm thinking that this had the potential of gifting the worldwith a terrific news item for Halloween!

I really do have to ask: Did you ever get around to tying the Caber Hitch?Looking forward to your constructive comments when you do. ;)

Constructive comments are already above --there are aspectsof the structure obvious upon visual inspection, such as thetying and rope consumption.

And the *real* knot or knot-structure is something tangible--not an ethereal "essence" to be discerned from an ivory tower,but material in hand under physical forces : to this thread, then,comes the issue of hitching what to what. One can experience tooeasily the "YMMV" syndrome. To kd8eeh's suggestion of constructionworker use in hoisting slick beams, I cannot imagine anyone makingsuch a risk --one would want a failsafe structure, not one dependentupon friction (and some user's correct tying).

But, yes, I did try the OP's structure, using a thin, flat-aspect nylonbraided commercial-fishing binding cord around a relatively fat, smoothwooden dowel --3cm (1.25") diameter. Your structure held, tenaciously.Moreover, some mused candidates of mine --sequence of half-hitcheswith various anchor hitches-- ultimately slid. (In some cases the pullon the connecting part to the next hitch ultimately delivered force tothe not-intended-to-be-so-gripping anchor hitch, and then the entirestructure slid.) [re "flat aspect" : this binding cord can be seen as asheath, coreless, so it will compress to a flatter aspect than rope;and this flatness makes some knots work better!]

But for a task of hauling logs, or ... whatever, I expect to meet needwith structure; should we consider using the Prohgrip here : it usesless material (and your in-place-of-half-hitch part itself could be allthat is needed, should this sort of attachment be wanted --use a stopperknot vice connection to some anchoring hitch). One finds that thesecoil away from pull ("near-loaded"?) structures give strong grips.

Let me add that I've discovered ways to put in somethinglike the OP's in-place-of-steering-half-hitch structure that isTIB (Tiable Inthe Bight), and seems to suffice --at least, as judgedby the same materials/test that I used above.

At first, I tried wrapping a bight --SPart and U-turn tail--where the OP takes the working end (to be SPart), and thentucking the bight tip into the U-turn loop, thereby comingdown over the SPart and containing it. But the nip affordedby the U-turn isn't so great --and sort of depends upon,gets better only upon, this forward structure's slipping andthus hauling upon the part of the U-turn connecting backto the "anchoring" hitch.

So, critiquing that, I made the U-turn into an overhand eyeknotto be used qua stopper, and brought the wrapping bight around--with just 2 wraps (= 4 strands seen on opposite side from theone shown, which number is already kind of *busy*)--to lock the bight around the stopper. This seems to hold nicely.

From here, one could hitch the SPart into the overhand's eyewith a sheet bend (TIB) and thereby load both of thewrapping bight legs. But this seems maybe less gripping, as I sawthere being more extension/opening of the wrapping, and moreloading of the connecting part to the anchor hitch. It also held,but I'm not sure it was holding with equal tenacity. (Things canlook good up to some point, and then increased force might showit all to slip --hard to assess friction hitches, for sure!)

Still, this all might be too clever by half, valuable more to arm-chairtheorists than to practical concerns. Again, why not tie just somefriction hitch directly at this point of attachment?

--dl*====

ps: Btw, I should also remark that the OP's graphic is well done.I don't usually like illustrations to include *rope-likeness* to showbraid or twist, but this does the latter w/o consequent busyness;the structure remains clear. I could do with just the final image,but might suggest a paring down to, say, #1-2-5-8. (#2 shouldbe sufficiently edifying to omit corresponding #6)

\And drawing the second hitch tight would tend to introduce more slack in between the two ends,instead of removing slack as the diagram seems to suggest, wouldn't it?

It depends upon how one does this,but you're right at pointing to the implication ofthe images --i.p., the wavy rope connecting thehitches in Steps 5..7 and then its straightness in 8.If one grasps the 2nd-tied hitch at its sides/wrapsand pulls it away from the anchoring hitch, thenthe connecting part will be drawn taut while atthe same time its loop closes on the SPart,which when loaded, ultimately, will impart directpull (in part) on the connecting part.

I wonder if anyone on the forum lives in the countryside and hauls logs?

I grew up in western Oregon logging fir timber (cat/bulldozer and rubber-tired skidder) with my father and cutting firewood for my extended family grandparents on both sides of the family, grand aunts, and ourselves -- four households total. Let me weigh in on a couple of things.

First, hauling and skidding logs are completely different activities. In "hauling," the logs are loaded on a log trucks or railroad cars to be sent to sawmills, chipping plants, or pulp plants. Dragging trees from the location where they were felled to the landing ( place where logs are piled and loaded onto trucks for further transport) is known as "skidding." Skidding is done by putting a noose made with steel cable or steel chain (a choker) around the large end of the log, then lifting that end off the ground (if possible), and then dragging it to the landing with either rubber tired skidders, bulldozers, and in some cases, high-lead logging equipment. Nobody skidds logs with rope, and hasn't for more than 100 years.

Quote

On my admittedly informal testing, which involved putting almost my full weight on a suspended broomstick tied with this hitch, I found the Caber to be more secure than the Timber Hitch.

The forces that come to bear during skidding logs are on a completely different order of magnitude (numbered in tons) than anything that you will achieve suspending yourself from a broomstick -- I wouldn't dream of trying it.

Even to drag something relatively small like a telephone pole with a timber hitch and rope will require hundreds of pounds of pull on the rope just to get the end off the ground. But you have to put the rope on the log/pole _before_ you can lift the end and drag it. I won't say that it can't be done with the OP's new hitch, but tying that hitch on a telephone pole which is laying flat on the ground borders on the ridiculous.

Quote

As for its practicality, it is my understanding that when feasible, logs are generally towed/hauled with the end lifted, this avoids snagging, digging in and lessens ground friction.

Exactly right. But the ends are lifted not so you can put a choker or chain or rope around the log. The cohoker or chain (or rope with a timber hitch) is put on the log and the machinery (skidder or cat or high lead) lifts the (end of) the log off the ground using the choker or rope with a hitch.

Quote

Since the log has to be lifted, tying a Caber Hitch should not be unduly onerous, given that it would only be used if the Timber Hitch were unable or unlikely to provide sufficient grip.

It would be extremely onerous and in all practical terms, if a properly used timber hitch won't do the job, you are using the wrong equipment -- move to a chain or chokers made from steel chain or cable.

Quote

The use of a short rope to make the hitch (due to the need to end-access the standing part of the rope, as roo points out) which would then be tied to the tow rope, may be a little inconvenient.

All the above having been said, I like the looks of the OP's hitch. It simply would not be practical for hauling or skidding logs in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps someone can think of another use for it

Being in the construction business, specifically having just built a fairly large pole barn made of 12, 14 and 16ft. 6x6's, we successfully used the timber hitch + half hitch combo with great success. I tried using the Timber Hitch without the half hitch and it was a no go, the Timber Hitch would slide all the way off the post. You'd be surprised at how much more security that little ole half hitch gives you when towing a 16 foot 6x6 with a 25 horsepower tractor.

A TH and HH would absolutely pull a telephone pole anywhere you wanted it to go...as long as you've got just enough wiggle room to get the rope under and around the pole itself. No way in the world would the hitch that was presented by the OP be appropriate in these situations. The best way to beef up for a large pull if rope's all you've got is to simply add more half hitches.

As much as I enjoy reading knotting experiences that do not come from my arm chair, or any other arm chair in the world, I wish to point out this : There is a great margin of effectiveness in many practical knots, so it should be expected that professionals in different places of the world use different knots for the same purposes... We can not conclude that one knot is better than another, based upon what we see "in the wild"... because there are many ways to skin a cat, and tradition, learning from senior people at a very young age, mode, etc., all can influence the decisions a professional makes in choosing a practical knot. I have tried to compare the different fishing knots used in different places of the world...It was amazing how differently the same job ( fishing the same kind of fish, for example...) was approached and solved by people belonging to different cultures, different traditions. If I say : " I was born on the deck of a fishing boat, and I tie fishing knots all my life, and I have been catching fishes during three quarters of a century in all the oceans in the world " , listen to my stories carefuly. If I say : " So, this is the best knot to tie a hook, or a snood on the fishing line ", stop listening, and do not believe me... Something like this is happening on sailing ships. If you own a sailing boat, the very first moment you set your foot on board of another captain s sailing boat, you understand - or you should better understand, if you do not want to return to the shore by swimming. So, as much as I respect the stories about what is happening "in the wild", I want REASONS and EXPERIMENTS to believe that one knot is very good and another is not so - sorry guys ! :) Tradition should be respected, but it is science, and science only, which should be believed - and this only till it is disproved by a new experiment, and a new theory.

But the ends are lifted not so you can put a choker or chain or rope around the log. The choker or chain (or rope with a timber hitch) is put on the log and the machinery (skidder or cat or high lead) lifts the (end of) the log off the ground using the choker or rope with a hitch

Quote

Is a trench dug under the log to get the choker around?

Precisely. You have to get the choker around the log somehow. Sometimes, on uneven ground, there is enough room under the log to get the nubbin end of the choker around without digging, and sometimes you can drive/force the nubbin end of the choker through, if the ground is soft. But otherwise, you are left with whatever means at your disposal to make/dig/poke a hole/trench large enough to get the nubbin through. This can be particularly frustrating if the tree or log is laying on a branch parallel to the trunk -- also interesting from linguistic and zoological standpoints. Various references to the female and offspring of Canis lupus familiaris are essential.

@75RR,Yes, the Timber Hitch + Half Hitch were awesome during the construction phases of my recent pole barn. I tried the Timber Hitch by itself and it slid up the 6x6, actually coming all the way off because the post was wet and slippery. We simply retied a Timber Hitch AND added a Half Hitch, problem was immediately solved. These 14 and 16 foot treated 6x6's were VERY heavy and the tractor had to be used instead of manpower.

The OP's hitch would be impratical because number one, the Timber Hitch/Halfhitch works very well and number two, his presented hitch is overkill of the highest degree IMO. I'm not saying there's not an application where his hitch wouldn't be the go to knot, but I like to keep things simple, safe and profitable on my jobs and that hitch misses on at least two of those criteria.

I've seen many of these "overkill knots" since I've been a member of this forum and there's really nothing wrong with those because it just means people are getting creative. I do remember reading in ABOK and these knots take me back to that reading, where Ashley comments on the propensity of people to take extra turns, extra twists, extra anything, and he said very seldom do these extra's help in the world of knotting.

The OP's hitch would be impractical because number one, the Timber Hitch +Half hitch works very well .

Any bend is impractical because the Zeppelin bend works very well. Any woman is ugly because there is/was Monica Bellucci. :)

The timber hitch is the less clever hitch I know - and the series of the half hitches is the second one ! I guess that their combination can not go much further... :) It works very well, but what does this mean for every other hitch ? It may have been used "in the wild" by professionals at one or more points in space and time, but what does it mean for the knot itself ? There are brilliant things that are made by not so clever tools, and not so clever things that are made by brilliant tools. There is a great margin of efficiency in knots, we seldom use them at 100% - so even if a knot is 50% "worse" than another, it would probably work very well, still. The OP hitch tries to explore a clever idea, to secure a bight under some riding turns, and then pass the standing part through this bight. It is the same idea used by fishermen when they tie their hooks, and it is called "snell-ing" ( the Snell knot, in its many variations ). I believe that the great majority of the many hook knots use this idea, because it is structurally simple, sound, and efficient. There has been a number of interesting suggestions that can help this same idea to be implemented better ( alas, without any pictures...), but this only proves that the idea itself is fertile. And we should not pay too much attention to the initial "purpose" of this hitch ! It is the hitch that matters, if it is OK, I am sure somebody will figure out a purpose for it sooner or later ... :)

The OP's hitch would be impractical because number one, the Timber Hitch +Half hitch works very well .

Any bend is impractical because the Zeppelin bend works very well. Any woman is ugly because there is/was Monica Bellucci. :)

The timber hitch is the less clever hitch I know - and the series of the half hitches is the second one ! I guess that their combination can not go much further... :) It works very well, but what does this mean for every other hitch ? It may have been used "in the wild" by professionals at one or more points in space and time, but what does it mean for the knot itself ?

It means that unless you can come up with something"less clever" --which seems to mean "simply effected"--to compete with this structure, don't make any noise.Which is why the zeppelin bend is sitting idle so much,as various "less clever" solutions meet the needs.(Still, there are some who believe that they havereached the absolute end of the knotting alphabetwith the Z --or its Z-enith. ;D )

Quote

The OP hitch tries to explore a clever idea :to secure a bight under some riding turns,and then pass the standing part through this bight.It is the same idea used by fishermen when they tie their hooks, and it is called "snell-ing" ( the Snell knot, in its many variations ).

Well, it's unlike any effective snelling I've seen,as the SPart here will pry out the wrapped bight--it's backwards, in effect.

As for fence-post extraction, an concern might be thatpulling up from one side could be improved upon byhaving a two-sided hoist, something akin to the oldbarrel hitch (which in one form is an overhand knotopened to have a barrel inserted down through its"spine" onto its "belly". Especially for pulling up somesmooth, metal posts, some sort of increased wrappingas shown here might be necessary.

So, I am logging timber in Oregon 100 years ago, and I like making noises - and I do not like people tell me which noises I should make... :)- and I want a hitch very like the hitch presented in this thread - based on the same idea. Which noise/hitch would I make ? As photography is already invented 50 years ago, I can show my hitch to the fellow loggers... so here it is : ( See the attached picture ) As I am not logging timber in Oregon 100 years ago, but still I like making noises, I will tie a Double Cow hitch, or two Double Cow hitches, and I will have an easy to remember and tie tight hitch, able to withstand a lengthwise pull even when tied around very slippery poles.

So, I am logging timber in Oregon 100 years ago, and I like making noises - and I do not like people tell me which noises I should make... :)- and I want a hitch very like the hitch presented in this thread - based on the same idea. Which noise/hitch would I make ? As photography is already invented 50 years ago, I can show my hitch to the fellow loggers... so here it is : ( See the attached picture )

Oh, those were the glory days. I suspect many knotters dream of wooden ships and the open seas. I do, too, I must admit. But I sometimes also dream of Oregon 100+ years ago when a fir tree 6 feet in diameter at the stump was considered normal to small. Photography, was in existence then -- I have pictures of my grandfather as a child taken in 1903. There are also photos to be found of the early days of logging and logging history. http://www.vannattabros.com/histlog3.html

Quote

As I am not logging timber in Oregon 100 years ago, but still I like making noises, I will tie a Double Cow hitch, or two Double Cow hitches, and I will have an easy to remember and tie tight hitch, able to withstand a lengthwise pull even when tied around very slippery poles.

I would hate to work for a hypothetical logging company that used such hitches -- if I proportionally scaled the rope and line in your picture to fit a six foot log, I expect the line would be nearly a foot in diameter. And to think I would have to wind that line around the log eight times in order to form my employer's favorite (he likes to make noise about it) towing hitch -- why it's enough to make a grown man cry. :) But since I remember seeing exhortations by someone that knots cannot be assumed to behave the same when tied in different sized lines, I would probably have a lot of vacation time while the hitch was scientifically tested in lines (and logs) of that size.;)

Seriously, though, that is a nice looking hitch, and it looks like it would hold well on smooth/slippery poles. If I didn't have to continually tie and untie the hitch all day long moving logs or poles I might consider it. But aesthetics aside, If I had to drag/pull/tow a lot of poles/lumber or timber with ropes, I'd still take a timber hitch with additional half hitches when and if needed. I guess that makes me the least clever member of the forum.;)

I'd still take a timber hitch with additional half hitches when and if needed.

But why the " timber hitch " ? You want to form an eye, to pass the standing part through it - OK. Why do you have to secure the eye with the most dumb thing in Earth - twisting the one leg of a bight around the other many times ? Would you able to do it with your proporsionally scaled rope ?

! And I can guess how old would be such a tree...I would have felt very sad if I had to cut the line of the life of such an old earth-fellow...

+1 For you (even more so, that it is thanks to the glory days, which is now hard to find trees that are of a certain size;but this is the fault of everyone and no one:it is nice to enjoy the free ride as long as there is(I am not referring(only) to those who at that times physically have cutting and carrying those big trees),we are human!)

But why the " timber hitch " ? You want to form an eye, to pass the standing part through it - OK. Why do you have to secure the eye with the most dumb thing in Earth - twisting the one leg of a bight around the other many times ?

"No+1"in my opinion;at least if i have a horse at my heels,that pulls here and there,and sniffs my bottom,I prefer to tie the old good Timber..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8PYcyNwSkQ

THIS is a lucky dude: lots of nature around him...+ a nice camera! Then I... much smog +...KnotMaker!(I love it)In my opinion the wraps around the leg(s)of the Timber hitch's loop are optimal to hold the bark of a raw wood, also,they create a mechanism such that, by lifting the log, it is sufficient to pull the tail, so that the loop is being easily extended to allow an immediate extraction of the hitch from the log, leaving intact the knot so to be immediately reused.

! And I can guess how old would be such a tree...I would have felt very sad if I had to cut the line of the life of such an old earth-fellow...

At 16 to 20 grains to the inch: somewhere around 700 years old for a 6 footer. Yes it can be very sobering to think that both the East and the West Coasts of the continental US were covered with these giants a mere 300 years ago. Here's a picture of a larger one that was harvested in the area where I grew up: http://www.vannattabros.com/adospics/22fir.jpg. The site claims it was a 22 footer, but it looks more in the region of 12'-13' to me. At any rate, It was probably more than a sapling when Rome fell.

I'd still take a timber hitch with additional half hitches when and if needed.

But why the " timber hitch " ? You want to form an eye, to pass the standing part through it - OK. Why do you have to secure the eye with the most dumb thing in Earth - twisting the one leg of a bight around the other many times ? Would you able to do it with your proposrtonally scaled rope ?

It might be ugly, it might be dumb, but it is quick, simple, and effective. That is its beauty. Maybe I am just lazy, but If I had to drag multiple poles with rope it is what I would use.As to logging beasts like mentioned above before the use of steel cables, I really don't know precisely how it was done. And I seriously doubt there are any clear records of this, either. The men who worked in those woods hundreds of years ago were likely mostly illiterate and passed their knowledge on by word of mouth and example. Hypotheticals can only get you so far.

both the East and the West Coasts of the continental US were covered with these giants a mere 300 years ago.

It becomes even more sobering the moment we realize that this will never happen again... and that this is the best case scenario - because, if it will happen, it would probably also mean that we would be not there to admire it... We are a species that has proved it can not live together with other species - and it even finds it difficult to live with other mumbers of the same species.[/quote]

So, I am logging timber in Oregon 100 years ago,and I like making noises - and I do not like people tell me which noises I should make... :)-and I want a hitch very like the hitch presented in this thread - ... so here it is

Only a fool would look twice at the gross consumption of ropeyou wasted in your silly noisiness!

As for

Quote

Why do you have to secure the eye with the most dumb thing in Earth--twisting the one leg of a bight around the other many times ?

..., it will be obvious in working with material instead ofdrunken daydreaming that dogging the substantial sortof rope used in the timber industry is much quicker to dothan even putting in a bowline to make that eye --andeasier to undo, as well. (The force on the loaded linewill bend the bight tip of the hitch; but it will not befor man to do such bending in knotting, and the simpledogging of the tail doesn't require such bends.)

Or, did we miss learning why you "want" such a hitch?I see three big Oregonians w/axes asking this in a waysuggesting that you need a good answer--or can quickly get them each a big tankard of brew(after which they too might have drunken views). ::) ;D

You should not be sooo clever to deduce it , should you ? :) I have only to warn you that, as statistics tell us, logging timber is MUCH more dangerous than bicycling... Beware, great logger, things are falling down from time immemorial, but it makes some difference if those things are us, or even heavier things on us.

I just tried to keep the knot and picture as resembling the original one shown in this thread, as possible. I do not understand why one should use more than one wrap...

Before we jump into any conclusions, we have to be sure you have read this... :)And before you jump into similar conclusions, you have to read, and tie the knot with one wrap per side, and compare it with the OP s knot. That was the purpose of this picture. I was not presenting a new knot, I was trying to improve the knot presented by 75RR.I take is as a compliment that you do not say anything about 99% of the knots I publish, but wait patiently to find a knot that is only meant to be a comment on another members knot, and it is tied with the way the other member has presented his knot...to comment on it. Thank you, great logger. You have made another one very loud and sooo wise/serious ( antonym to "silly" ) noise ! :)

it will be obvious in working with material instead of drunken daydreaming

I have never drank a drop of alcohol in the past 40 years of my life, during either the day or the night. However, I excuse you of being drunk during Christmas and writing what ... you write - they say it helps loneliness.

What can I do ? :) I have to prove that I am not an extra-terrestrial, as a human I can not do but make noises, "silly" or wise ones ( are there any "wise" noises, I wonder...), that I work with real material, not unicorns, and that I do not drink and dream during the day ! :)

I have tried to modify the hitch presented in this thread, in two ways : 1. The standing part, the segment of the rope before the wrappings around the long object, should not needed/used during the tying too much. Its end should be considered inaccessible, of course. 2. So, I had only added two loops on it, which work as nipping loops ( both their ends are loaded ).

I have shown this modification, keeping the symmetry and the general appearance of the original hitch as much as possible . So, I had shown the modified hitch tied with three wraps, just because the original hitch was tied with three wraps. However, it was obvious, and I had explicitly said that this was the only reason for this, and that I do not understand why one should add more wraps ( perhaps because he fears the surface of the object could harm the rope, and more wraps would "spread" this danger ? ). James Peterson have seen and acknowledged it, but Dan Lehman, influenced by the "spirit" of the days, did not. Why ? Hypotheses non fingo ! :)

So it seems I have to present this hitch tied with one wrap - which was not my initial purpose. For a tight hitch around slippery objects, able to withstand a lenthwise pull, the only thing I know something about, I had suggested the tightest hitch we have, the TackleClamp hitch, or the much simpler and "familiar" Double Cow hitch. ( Which, of course, dL have has not seen or does not wish to know, because he thinks they are too "silly" to his high standarts, I suppose )( I have not met a single logger in my life, neither such a huge tree as the trees shown by J.P. - in my country, the old trees have been cut to build ships 2500 years ago...and any tree that tries to grow up, the poor creature, has a similar fate ever since...) One starts by forming two loops on the standing part, alongside the length of the long object. Then, he/she wraps them two times, one time at each side. I have named those two loops "dL s glasses" ( since the word "glasses", as well as the word "spirit", can have different meanings, I leave the proper interpretations to the reader... :)) Those two nipping loops bear the most of the load, which is then spread, through them, to the two (or more) wraps around the body of the long object. Those were my 2 pence in this thread, and I believe they were not worth even one drop of spirit... falling into my body from a bottle, or from anywhere/anybody else. Who is the "silly" and who is not, and who works with materials ( materials : the things we can take pictures of, and are not described only by words - blah blah), it is knot me to decide !